[Lasher]

This was touched on last week in another thread but never went anywhere. Vbulletin has a feature called "Rep". If you appreciated someones post you can add 'rep' to them by clicking on the scales icon to the left of their post. If you thought their post was a flame/unconstructive/etc you can also add negative rep.

The "rep" itself doesn't do anything, it is just a little recognition - the idea being that over time the community becomes a little self moderating. It has no affect on your ability to use the forums. The only real affect is that the little green bars you see under people's names start to increase as they gain more rep. The only other benefit is that the higher your own "rep" is the more it affects someone else when you add/remove rep.

Some forums let you see who added/took away rep, others don't. This one currently does but that was turned on without much thought. Don't have a strong opinion either way myself, posting to see if anyone else does...

[chaosprime]

I am moderately in favor of the current disclosure setting; I've had an interesting conversation because of it that couldn't have occurred otherwise.

[Newworlds]

Mixed feelings on rep itself. Has this been part of the forums for awhile? Because, while I think rating a person might be a good idea. What happens when people that obviously dislike eachother start giving negative reps out of spite? Or have their friends do so, etc. Or the reverse.

This is a hard thing to balance or control the abuse I'd say. Perhaps a limit of one possitive or negative rep per day?

As to disclosure. I would say yes. If you are going to give a rep, stand behind the why.

[Threshold]

Honestly, I think rep systems like this are just ripe for abuse and people using it as a way to harass people.

Furthermore, the people most likely to game the system are the biggest trolls. They are the only types of people with the time and energy to waste effort making numerous accounts, rallying their "buddies", etc. to trash someone's rep or boost their own rep.

It is similar to post counts. I think showing them is usually a bad thing. It gives people something worthless to try and game, and can often end up being harmful. So it adds nothing, but risks creating a lot of problems.

[cratylus]

Furthermore, the people most likely to game the system are the biggest trolls. They are the only types of people with the time and energy to waste effort making numerous accounts, rallying their "buddies", etc. to trash someone's rep or boost their own rep.

MMmmmmm....I dunno. I think that rep transparency probably cuts
down on negative reps. If you keep rep but want to lower the
likelihood of negative rep wars, transparent rep is the way.

Are you saying people are making sockpuppets
now to downrep you? This should be something Lasher
can detect and clean up.

Since reps don't actually *do* anything (on some sites, rating
systems can affect whether your posts show up minimized
or expanded), I don't see much point in doing away with them
entirely.

Personally I don't like transparent rep. It discourages downreps,
which I think are just as valid as upreps. But obviously I'm a
weirdo around here anyway.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

[Fern]

I find myself against rep systems in general, public or not. I've seen them used as harassment tools on other (non-game-oriented) forums. Perhaps we do not need that here.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by cratylus Personally I don't like transparent rep. It discourages downreps, which I think are just as valid as upreps. But obviously I'm a weirdo around here anyway.

It's your pirate laughing Avatar man. It freaks me out.

Originally Posted by fern I find myself against rep systems in general, public or not. I've seen them used as harassment tools on other (non-game-oriented) forums. Perhaps we do not need that here

I'm starting to agree more with that sentiment.

[ScourgeX]

Originally Posted by Fern I find myself against rep systems in general, public or not. I've seen them used as harassment tools on other (non-game-oriented) forums. Perhaps we do not need that here.

Hopefully allowing people to see who is repping them will cut down on this. If the "who" gets hidden, then comments should get disabled.

Maybe new accounts should not be able to rep someone until they make a post or have been active X number of days?

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds It's your pirate laughing Avatar man. It freaks me out.

See, Crat? Ninjas everywhere.

[Fern]

Originally Posted by ScourgeX Hopefully allowing people to see who is repping them will cut down on this. If the "who" gets hidden, then comments should get disabled. Maybe new accounts should not be able to rep someone until they make a post or have been active X number of days?

Our reputations as members of the MUD community hinge on far more than forum participation. From what I've seen elsewhere, repping systems tend to bring out the worst in a certain strata of otherwise rational individuals.

Flack and fallout over a heated post can dwindle over time, under normal conditions. Hang a rep system there, and the impact can linger for months. Make the names of those repping a person visible, and the impact can linger far longer.

In the face of the challenges the MUD community faces as a whole, struggling to maintain and grow in the face of a myriad pressures and diverse competitors, I sense that we need to take steps to discourage fragmentation and internal conflicts, not steps that add to them.

[Xerihae]

I personally don't think we need a rep system. I think it's a gimmick added by forum developers to make their bit of software "Extra Cool With New Toys Innit". A community learns who the goodies and baddies are as interaction occurs between members, and people new to the forum should not really go on someones currently showing rep (assuming they even know to look at it) as it could be misleading. The only way for new members to get up to speed is to interact and read others posts, which is the way it should be in my mind.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Mixed feelings on rep itself. Has this been part of the forums for awhile? Because, while I think rating a person might be a good idea. What happens when people that obviously dislike eachother start giving negative reps out of spite? Or have their friends do so, etc. Or the reverse.

Does it matter? It's a nearly meaningless number that has no effect on anything but your ability to affect someone else's nearly meaningless number. If it's gamed, some people will have 'unnaturally' high or low numbers. The consequences of that are.....well, there are none so it doesn't really matter as far as I can see.
--matt

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by the_logos Does it matter? It's a nearly meaningless number that has no effect on anything but your ability to affect someone else's nearly meaningless number. If it's gamed, some people will have 'unnaturally' high or low numbers. The consequences of that are.....well, there are none so it doesn't really matter as far as I can see. --matt

I think it matters just enough that it should be removed.

It is never a good idea to give people tools to harass people. Even if it is minor, it adds to a general culture of harassment that is negative and certainly bad for the forum.

Also, you will have people who will get disgruntled over some aspect of the system and then let that bleed over into their posting behavior. That hurts the quality of the discussions.

It adds absolutely nothing.

At a minimum, it has potential of real negative effects.

That makes it a lose-lose imho.

As someone else noted, I think it is one of those things that forum software writers throw in just because they can, and it gives them a feature they can list they support.

[Milawe]

Might just be me, but I like the rep system. I just think it should be anonymous so we can down rep people without getting flamed in PMs. On the other hand, maybe that will make someone think twice about downrepping people. That could be a good thing.

I like to give positive feedback, so I'm not really downrepping people myself. It's nice, though, to be able to give a kudos or two to people who really try to add to discussions and be constructive.

[scandum]

I can imagine that handing out negative reputation to the wrong person could get quite ugly. I'd probably flip out and take it out on my girlfriend if that was ever to happen to me.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by scandum I can imagine that handing out negative reputation to the wrong person could get quite ugly. I'd probably flip out and take it out on my girlfriend if that was ever to happen to me.

Is this a shameless attempt to prevent down-repping? If we down rep you, your girlfriend pays!!

Sneaky... very, very sneaky.

[Lasher]

Btw, it is possible to have rep set up such that people can only add positive rep to help encourage "good posts" but can't leave negative.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Lasher Btw, it is possible to have rep set up such that people can only add positive rep to help encourage "good posts" but can't leave negative.

While that might be a little better, it still gives "lamers" an outlet they shouldn't have. You know there will be people who make dummy accounts just to rep up their main account, and then later down the road somehow use it in an argument.

The thing is, what value is there to this? None. Will it actually create any positive effects? No. Will it affect how people post? No way. So all it will do is encourage and reward people for being twinks, and that's never a good thing.

The same reason this is a bad system is why it is so hard to create systems in RP Muds for rewarding RP. Making a good system where players can flag each other for good RP requires the creation of all sorts of checks and balances in order to make it a good system rather than something cheezy that causes more problems, more clique-ish behavior, and more elitism.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Lasher Btw, it is possible to have rep set up such that people can only add positive rep to help encourage "good posts" but can't leave negative.

That might be a good choice then, if you feel that you absolutely want it, since it eliminates most of the negative sides.

Personally I don't see much of interest coming out of it, however, and it could still be 'abused', although on a smaller scale.

[scandum]

Originally Posted by Lasher Btw, it is possible to have rep set up such that people can only add positive rep to help encourage "good posts" but can't leave negative.

I've seen a few forums where only positive rep was allowed.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Lasher Btw, it is possible to have rep set up such that people can only add positive rep to help encourage "good posts" but can't leave negative.

That sounds like a decent way to avoid "rep wars".

Personally I've found the positive rep thing to be quite useful, as it lets me indicate to someone that I agree with their points or found their post useful, without cluttering up the thread with "me too" posts.

I don't consider the reputation rating itself to be of much value, as it could easily be "gamed", but I like reading the private comments people leave.

[Aeran]

I think the rep should be anonymous. Now it is "give a bad rep away - get a bad rep back". With positive rep people become "fanboys" handing out rep just because they know the target will know who gave them the rep.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Aeran I think the rep should be anonymous. Now it is "give a bad rep away - get a bad rep back". With positive rep people become "fanboys" handing out rep just because they know the target will know who gave them the rep.

If it's just positive rep, maybe it would be okay for it to be anonymous. That way you don't have "rep trading", too, though, I honestly don't think people are doing that now. It might be good just to prevent it in the first place.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by KaVir Personally I've found the positive rep thing to be quite useful, as it lets me indicate to someone that I agree with their points or found their post useful, without cluttering up the thread with "me too" posts. I don't consider the reputation rating itself to be of much value, as it could easily be "gamed", but I like reading the private comments people leave.

Agreed on both of these counts. Specifically, knowing why people found your posts helpful is nice. I try to remember to always fill in the 'Reason' field when I'm leaving feedback, and I'd encourage others to do the same.

Also, it's occasionally difficult to distinguish between "everyone agrees with my post" and "no one has any opinion of my post", since most people don't like leaving "me too".

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Mina If it's just positive rep, maybe it would be okay for it to be anonymous. That way you don't have "rep trading", too, though, I honestly don't think people are doing that now.

Agreed. Maybe we can just cross that bridge when we come to it. So far I haven't seen anything i'd consider 'abuse', I have gotten useful feedback, and if someone no one's ever heard of suddenly has a huge positive rep, we can deal with those on a case-by-case basis.

I'd vote for "Status quo-- Lasher has bigger fish to fry".

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Valg Agreed. Maybe we can just cross that bridge when we come to it. So far I haven't seen anything i'd consider 'abuse', I have gotten useful feedback, and if someone no one's ever heard of suddenly has a huge positive rep, we can deal with those on a case-by-case basis. I'd vote for "Status quo-- Lasher has bigger fish to fry".

I'd say remove something with potential abuse BEFORE it gets abused and creates flamewars.

It adds absolutely nothing. The idea of people giving rep for agreeing with someone's points is just gruesome. Ugh. That smacks of being given a treat and told "good doggie." If rep is going to be used for agreeing or disgareeing with someone's points, that's even worse than just repping based on good/bad behavior.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Rip the cancer out before it metastasizes.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by Threshold This is a disaster waiting to happen. Rip the cancer out before it metastasizes.

ROFL. While the image you generate is quite dramatic, don't you think it goes a little bit far?

Positive rep doesn't really "give" you anything. I don't even know what the ranks are and who is above or below anyone else. They're kind of just something I think might make people pause and think about what they post, but they're also extremely easy to ignore. That is a GOOD thing, imo!

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Threshold I'd say remove something with potential abuse BEFORE it gets abused and creates flamewars. It adds absolutely nothing. The idea of people giving rep for agreeing with someone's points is just gruesome.

I can't completely understand why, but for some reason I agree with this. I just can't help but to think friends will rep friends, enemies will anti-rep enemies and so on. Perhaps I'm jaded from administrating cheaters for years, perhaps I have little faith in self regulation.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I can't completely understand why, but for some reason I agree with this. I just can't help but to think friends will rep friends, enemies will anti-rep enemies and so on. Perhaps I'm jaded from administrating cheaters for years, perhaps I have little faith in self regulation.

Yeah, I have zero faith in systems like this unless they have an enormous amount of checks and balances. There also has to be an overpoweringly valuable reason for the system in the first place, to justify all the headaches.

We have an elaborate system on Threshold where you can give positive or negative reports about someone's RP. The reports people write up get randomly peer reviewed by other players (with all character names removed), and for a report to become "valid", a preponderance of people who read it have to agree in the validity of the report. And at least this system has value, since it helps reward good RP on an RP required game. In other words, it directly relates to the purpose of the game. The purpose of this forum is not to prove who is a good poster or not.

So the reputation system serves no real, significant positive purpose and just creates major opportunities for abuse, clique formation, favoritism, and petty squabbles. That is a recipe for disaster.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Threshold This is a disaster waiting to happen. Rip the cancer out before it metastasizes.

Given that the consequences of the worst-case scenario "disaster" is that "someone will have a larger-than-usual number in a field with no impact", I think you're being overdramatic there.

I just like it as a quick feedback system that doesn't trigger the pop-up notification I have for PMs. (As a moderator, I prefer to know ASAP if someone is PMing me, since most of my PMs have to do with moderation.) It's useful to the recipient, and everyone seems to know that the number isn't a reflection of status or authority or whatever.